Plaintiff is seeking $1 million for destroying reproductive organs and $5 million for thong alterations (only kidding; wanted to get your attention).

Court watchers are awaiting a decision in the Florida Supreme Court case, Carlisle v. Carnival, which will determine whether cruise lines can be held liable for malpractice at sea. In Carlisle, a 14 year-old girl fell ill on a ship owned by the Carnival cruise line. The ship’s doctor treated her for flu. When her symptoms continued, the girl and her family returned home, where they reportedly discovered her appendix had ruptured. The suit alleges that the ensuing infection damaged her reproductive organs. In 2003, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal overturned a lower court decision dismissing the case; in doing so, the appeals court affirmed a 1959 ruling that was the only case in over 100 years to find a cruise line vicariously liable for the actions of the ship’s doctor. “Historically, the law recognized that doctors are trained in a discipline that the cruise lines aren’t practicing,” said Curtis Mase, a Miami maritime attorney now defending another company, Celebrity Cruises, in a similar case. Cruise line attorneys have suggested that passengers can sue the doctors directly, rather than suing the cruise lines. But according to some plaintiffs’ attorneys, ship doctors are often beyond the jurisdiction of U.S. courts, leaving cruise lines to defend the actions of the doctors in their employ. The ruling in Carlisle, expected sometime this summer, could broaden legal rights for passengers in such cases and make recovery of damages easier.

FDA and the Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP) have launched a national education campaign to help eliminate one of the most common but preventable sources of medication errors—the use of ambiguous medical abbreviations. The campaign addresses the use of error-prone abbreviations in all forms of medical communication, including written medication orders, computer-generated labels, medication administration records, pharmacy or prescriber computer order entry screens, and commercial medication labeling, packaging, and advertising. As part of the campaign, FDA recommends that ISMP’s list of abbreviations, symbols, and dose designations, most often associated with medication errors, be considered whenever medical information is communicated. FDA and ISMP’s campaign promotes ISMP’s list and includes an online tool kit of materials, brochures, posters, and more. All of these materials are available on the FDA Web site.

A new AHRQ study in the American Journal of Public Health indicates that state laws limiting malpractice damage awards reduce overall state health care expenditures. The report estimates that the average reduction in health expenditures for states with caps on malpractice damage awards is $92 per capita (or 3 percent to 4 percent) over the period of time that the cap has been in place. The study specifically examines noneconomic damage caps—that is, damage caps for pain and suffering as opposed to economic caps that limit awards to cover direct economic outlays in a malpractice suit. The study, entitled, “The Impact of State Laws Limiting Malpractice Damage Awards on Health Care Expenditures,” was conducted by AHRQ researchers Fred Hellinger, Ph.D., and William Encinosa, Ph.D. The final recommendations of the study state that future studies should expand the analysis to focus on whether the level of damage caps relates to health care expenditures; the variation of the effectiveness of these laws across States; and whether or not malpractice tort reform law is related to poorer health outcomes.

An 82-year-old man was transferred to a hospital for the treatment of respiratory distress after computed tomography (CT) of the thorax. He had undergone a follow-up evaluation seven years after a lower left lobectomy for bronchial carcinoma. At the end of the examination, when the patient got down from the examining table, he had acute dyspnea, weakness of the arms and legs, and dizziness. He did not lose consciousness. The CT demonstrated a large amount of air in the left subclavian vein, the superior vena cava, the right ventricle, and the pulmonary-artery trunk. The patient was immediately placed in the left lateral and Trendelenburg’s position while breathing 100 percent oxygen and was transferred. At admission, the patient’s clinical status improved quickly and he recovered without any sequelae.Ninety milliliters of air had been injected in error instead of contrast solution because the injector had been repositioned but the disposable syringe had not been replaced with a new syringe (Ooops!).  This incident emphasizes the need to ensure the safety of injector devices and intravascular catheters to prevent the injection of air.blocking internet porn sitespornographic blocking contentsblog gay free pornoporn blogfree blog pornoblogbot pornoblogs filipina pornblogs of straight porn Map